This has been a particularly useful, and generally thoughtful discussion.
As an Instructor I have to deal with 'standards' on a daily basis. I KNOW what my agency's standards are for most of what I do. At times, I have needed to call the agency, to confirm what I thought or clarify something about which I was unsure. It is OK to not know, and have to ask. It is not OK to not know, and not bother to ask.
Four issues seem to be at the heart of the discussion thus far.
What actually are 'standards'?
For the majority of training agencies, 'standards' are in reality relatively broad, and inclusive. By that I DO NOT mean lax. But, agencies are generally averse to being TOO prescriptive, where there is no need. An agency standard may specify that a 'Primary regulator and alternate air source' is a required part of 'standard diver equipment', for example. But, the 'alternate air source' could be a traditional second stage, an integrated alternate inflator, or even a pony bottle (with regulator). Individually, we may have (strong) preferences as to which of these is the best, but the 'standard' of the agency may allow some things that we don't think is best.
Yes, some agencies are more stringent than others. In the Equipment section of the Technical Instructor Manual for one agency, it is noted that a 'BCD with D-rings or other attachment points for a stage/deco cylinder' is required'. That's pretty simple, and allows for a lot of choices (good, and bad). In my copy (circa 2010) of the NTEC, it is noted that 'A wing-style buoyancy compensator is required and may be mounted to either a hard backplate harness or a soft harness. ' It goes on the say that a hard backplate is recommended, and students should be advised that a hard-plate system is far more stable and secure.' That's fine. I use a hard plate myself. But, I will say that I have dove a Transpac with double 130's and found it very stable and secure.
It is not uncommon to confuse conventions, and standards. Or, to confuse recommendations and standards. I know a little bit about the technical dive training standards of several agencies, and none of them include prohibition of cross clipping of a bottle. I personally may not consider the practice optimal (and I might even negatively judge a diver who does it, as sloppy), but that is a matter of MY preference and opinion, not an agency standard.
To take the discussion a step further, what constitutes ‘good’ training? Can an Instructor adhere faithfully to all applicable (agency) standards, and provide poor training? I am not in any way arguing against adherence to standards, by the way. Rather, I am suggesting that standards may not be the whole story.
How do / can we know what they are?
Some scuba training agency standards can be found online, at least in part, with a simple search. For example, I found a 2010 document describing NTEC. What I don't know is if there is a later version. But, I bet I can call NAUI and find out. But, anyone who really wants to know what training standards are can easily find out. They are usually incorporated into the student manuals for diove courses,l a student diver can ALWAYS ask the instructor, or call the agency. So, they are never a closely held secret.
What constitutes 'smart' behavior on social media?
I continue to be amazed that people think they can post whatever is on their mind on social media, without consequence. I had this challenge with one of my daughters at one point, where she would have a bad night at work (a restaurant) and post something on FB about 'idiot customers' and 'wussie management'. She didn't seem to realize that people knew from her FB profile where she worked, that some of the 'idiot customers' could read her posts (and easily figure out that they were the subject), nor that ''wussie management' would also read them, and possibly hold her responsible for them.
What should you do if you think an agency's standards have been violated?
A good training agency wants to know what is going on in 'the field'. Too often, they don't hear about problems until something really bad happens. That doesn't mean that they will take any disciplinary action in response to every, or any, report. And, they want accurate, factual information. Some divers consider a FB post about what may or may not have happened to be second hand, even heresay. That's fine. Others may nonetheless wish to share it with an agency just so that agency is alerted to the possibility of an issue. And, that's fine as well. I am usually pretty hesitant to judge from afar, because I may not have context. But, that's just me. I think Marie made it clear that she intended her post to be a cautionary communication for divers considering certain types of training. That was her choice. It was also her choice to report it to the training agency. I may or may not have done that. But, I won't criticize her for doing so.
It was probably wise for the shop to remove some / many of the posts, after this thread started. Notwithstanding what was probably just genuine enthusiasm on the part of the FB poster - they had a good experience, and wanted to share it - it is simply not good for business to create the appearance of possible sloppiness in training. There was a great quote in the movie Hoosiers that comes to mind here: 'there are two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.
